SCIENCE MEETS BIBLICAL EXEGESIS IN THE GALILEO AFFAIR

Abstract Although Galileo's venture into theology, as discussed by McMullin, is limited to Galileo's exegesis of Scripture, it can be seen as an important element in a broader role in theology, namely in ecclesiology and in the development of doctrine. From the Council of Trent, the Reformation Council, until today there has been a development in the Church concerning the manner in which Sacred Scripture should be interpreted and as to whether it can be said to be in conflict with our scientific knowledge of nature. Galileo made a significant contribution to this development. With his telescopic observations he was, in fact, undermining the prevailing Aristotelian natural philosophy of his day and was defending the birth of modern science against a mistaken view of Scripture. The Church of his time was not prepared to accept his contribution to this theological development. What does this history have to contribute to the challenges we face today in the interactions between science and religious belief?     

Old Testament and Church Ministries in Two Ecumenical Dialogues

Abstract: To understand any church institution as founded by Jesus, one must take account of its relationship to his work of bringing the Old Testament revelation and its institutions to their eschatological realization. A sample of the work of recent ecumenical dialogues (BEM and the international Lutheran– Roman Catholic document on church and justification) shows that their discussions of church institutions have failed to do this adequately. This failure has complicated the efforts at unity to which these dialogues intend to contribute. Attention to the Old Testament roots of church institutions can help ecumenical ecclesiology to focus better on some important issues.     

CATECHIZING THE HEAD AND THE HEART: AN INTEGRATED MODEL FOR CONFIRMATION MINISTRY

In catechesis for adolescents seeking confirmation in the Roman Catholic Church, a dualistic bias unconsciously dichotomizes objective doctrine and subjective psychology. This is problematic because if a catechist does not communicate mind‐independent truth, no seed of Catholic faith will have been planted in a student. At the same time, if a catechist does not affirm a student's subjectivity, the seed cannot find receptive soil. I believe the key to integrating these intellectual and affective elements – the head and the heart – lies in the link between what Bernard Lonergan calls authentic subjectivity and objectivity. Catechists can appeal to this link by embracing the moral responsibility to ‘know our knowing,’ becoming aware of our dualistic bias and judging our faith experiences according to objective standards of knowledge.